tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 03 18:45:27 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}

At 10:05 AM 6/3/98 -0700, HomDoq wrote:

>charghwI' answered:
>> Thinking more on this, I think the clearest expression would be 
>> {Qatlh yaS Suvlu'meH Qu'.} It is clearest because the thing 
>
>thank you!!!
>
>so do I get it right, in saying that sentences of the form
>
>Qual (Obj V-lu'meH) Qu'
>
>can be rephrased/simplified as
>
>V-meH Qual Obj?
>

No, I would say that the Obj retains its place relative to the V-meH
verb: Obj V-meH Qual.  The question _I've_ been considering is whether
the Qual verb requires an explicit subject: {yaS SuvmeH Qatlh} or
{yaS SuvmeH Qatlh Qu'}?

We seem agreed that the {-meH} verb phrase is impersonal.  I can see
why charghwI' adds {-lu'}, but I don't agree it is needed.  Okrand
has used the {-meH} construction impersonally without {-lu'}, as in
{ghojmeH taj}, {pe'meH taj}, and I don't think it's needed in this case.
Actually, it has some validity when the {-meH} construction comes first,
but I definitely don't think it's needed when it follows the quality verb:

Obj V-lu'meH Qual (Qu')

but

Qual Obj V-meH Qu'

In the first case, the {-meH} phrase is a dependent verb phrase, preceded by
its object and with the indefinite subject rendered by {-lu'}.  In the
second case, the phrase (Obj V-meH) is used almost like a noun, and is the
modifier of {Qu'}.  As I noted above, these sorts of phrases seem to be
impersonal by nature and don't require the (-lu'}.


>Taking Qov's response into account, I think that these short forms
>really give the adjectival verb an adverbial meaning and the -meH
>turns the verb into a passive participle.
>
>e.g. qIpmeH ngeD nejwI' = The probe is easily hit.
>

I don't accept that {nejwI'} can be the subject of {ngeD}.  It is clearly
the object of {qIp} and needs to be in that position.

>In German, the construction "to be + infinitive" is called a
>"modal infinitive", because it can be rephrased using a modal verb
>like can, should, must etc. How do English grammarians analyze
>"to be Adj + infinitive"? (I'm asking this to see how I can
>understand the Klingon, please consider this in your answer :0)
>

As I've noted before, I believe this is a Sentence As Subject formation in
English, and ("to be Adj" + infinitive) is logically equivalent to
(infinitive = Adj): "to be hard to hit" = "hitting is hard".

I think I understand the problem, now!  Your modal infinitive is actually
functioning like a compound adjective.  In the phrase "the probe is hard
to hit", "hard to hit" is adjectival, used as a predicate with "probe" as
its subject.  It works the same way in English, too.  But in Klingon, as
I understand it, the modal infinitive is not adjectival, but verbal.
We can't designate the probe as "hard-to-hit".  When we say in Klingon,
"hitting is hard", the item which is hard to hit must be the _object_
of "hitting".  We've come to use the {-meH} construction to do this:
{nejwI' qIpmeH Qatlh Qu'} = {nejwI' qIpmeH} "in order to hit the probe/
hitting the probe/to hit the probe" + {Qatlh Qu'} "the task is hard",
i.e., "the task is hard to hit the probe."  This is why I like charghwI''s
new formula, it makes this even clearer: Qatlh nejwI' qIpmeH Qu'} =
"The task (of hitting the probe) is hard".

>What if the subject is explicitly stated, e.g.
>
>Qatlh yaS vISuvmeH Qu'.
>
>could you write this as
>
>vISuvmeH Qatlh yaS?
>

Your movement of {vISuvmeH} is correct, but you are still (as I now
realize!) treating the {-meH} + Qual as a compound adjective: *"the
officer is a (hard for me to fight) one".  In reality, {-meH} never
modifies Qual in either front or back position: before Qual, {-meH} is
a separate, dependent, verb phrase; after Qual, it is a quasi-noun
phrase modifying {Qu'}, which is the actual subject of Qual at all times.
Similarly, any object of the {-meH} phrase remains its object at all times.

Does this seem logical?


-- ter'eS

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711

Back to archive top level